1) Our measures tend to ignore immigration, which has increased reported poverty. Many immigrants are poor and low-skilled. From 1989 to 2007, about three-quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics -- mostly immigrants, their children and grandchildren. The poverty rate for blacks fell during this period, though it was still much too high (24.5 percent in 2007). Poverty "experts" don't dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty.
2) Our measures ignore the improvement of the material well being of our poor in this country.
The official poverty measure obscures this by counting only pre-tax cash income and ignoring other sources of support. These include the earned-income tax credit (a rebate to low-income workers), food stamps, health insurance (Medicaid), and housing and energy subsidies. Spending by poor households from all sources may be double their reported income, reports a study by Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute. Although many poor live hand-to-mouth, they've participated in rising living standards. In 2005, 91 percent had microwaves, 79 percent air conditioning and 48 percent cellphones.
NOTE: The Heritage Foundation has an excellent study comparing the poor in the USA with the poor in other countries. After reading it, I have more reason to give thanks to the Lord in Thanksgiving. It is no wonder people are risking their lives to come to this country...
Samuelson argues further :
The existing poverty line could be improved by adding some income sources and subtracting some expenses (example: child care). Unfortunately, the administration’s proposal for a “supplemental poverty measure” in 2011 — to complement, not replace, the existing poverty line — goes beyond these changes. The new poverty number would compound public confusion. It also raises questions about whether the statistic is tailored to favor a political agenda.
The “supplemental measure” ties the poverty threshold to what the poorest third of Americans spend on food, housing, clothes and utilities. The actual threshold — not yet calculated — will almost certainly be higher than today’s poverty line. Moreover, the new definition has strange consequences. Suppose that all Americans doubled their incomes tomorrow, and suppose that their spending on food, clothing, housing and utilities also doubled. That would seem to signify less poverty — but not by the new poverty measure. It wouldn’t decline, because the poverty threshold would go up as spending went up. Many Americans would find this weird: People get richer but “poverty” stays stuck.
What produces this outcome is a different view of poverty. The present concept is an absolute one: The poverty threshold reflects the amount estimated to meet basic needs. By contrast, the supplemental measure embraces a relative notion of poverty: People are automatically poor if they’re a given distance from the top, even if their incomes are increasing. The idea is that they suffer psychological deprivation by being far outside the mainstream. The math of this relative definition makes it hard for people at the bottom ever to escape “poverty.”
In other word to paraphrase the words of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan -— OBAMA IS DEFINING POVERTY UP.
It also may be a self-stabilizing number. That is it may be that when people get under the 3x food income number, they make a positive change in their lives because it’s too hard to get by. Above that number they might make changes that make them look poorer like moving out of their grandparents house or having a child.
My point is that the War On Poverty may be chasing its tail.
I have often argued this very same point: The people who receive all the government benefits like food, housing, enrgy, EITC, and in Wisconsin, child care subsidies often are better off than people with higher EARNED income who do not qualify for any of these programs. I know people who go without any health and dental care because they make too much to qualify for medicaid, but too little to be able to afford insurance. These are the people I really feel for.
I still refuse to accept a person as being poor when they have a roof over their head, indoor plumbing, air conditioning and heat, refrigeration, cable TV, internet, IPOD, cell phone and a car.
America’s Poor, two cars, microwave, three tvs, 2 computers, 1/2 motorcycle.
Hey, I remember back in the Jimmy Carter days when my parents worked government jobs and only would buy 2-4 2 liters of soda. This is all they could afford in their budget.
I had a friend who was poor according to Jimmy, had food stamp and everything. I always liked going to my friends house. He had 4 pallets outside his house and we used to sit out there and drink them till the sun went down.
We have the fattest poor people in the world, and probably the only ones in the world who have gold teeth.
Trying to get the government to make more than half of the folks above average.
We don't ignore the effects that other illegal behaviors have on the poverty level (e.g. drug abuse), so we shouldn't ignore the effects that illegal immigration has either.
That being said, if most illegal immigrants are able to eke out an existence in the US while sending back billions of dollars to their families in Mexico, then they can't be all that bad off.
Here in Los Angeles there are countless grocery stores, markets, shops, bars, and night clubs that would not exist if not for the money they get from patrons who can't speak English, i.e. illegal immigrants. How did so-called poor people generate so much industry wallowing in abject poverty?